Did a rival answer to "what works" lose on the merits, or did it never have a lab?

Is the RCT specimen "no second lab," or "outlived a result that made RCTs unusable"?

Which fact is component 6 scoring on the RCT row: no second lab, or a frame that stayed false?

Did any development hiring channel after 2010 keep identification and drop RCT experience as the filter?

Does "identification already paid" protect the RCT specimen from circularity, or just enlarge the circle?

Would early-1990s journals have taken a structural development paper that actually identified a mechanism?

Is answering a limitation with more of the same method absorption, or a living tool?

Can component 6 be scored while a frame is still winning, or only after you know whether it died?

Is the RCT critique a bite that should have retired the method, or a senior objection that left it usable?

Does component 6 require unusability, or only a serious objection on the field's own terms?

Are limited-but-best and outlived-a-kill different boxes, or one "winner with critics" bucket?

Is "counterpressure failure" one mechanism, or two failures under one stencil?

What, if anything, was supposed to be imported in the RCT case?

Which component does the town pass and the RCT row fail, or the reverse?

Is the village case a value ranking of ends, or a substrate diagnosis that does not pick a scoreboard?

What staffing count makes SEC a counter-specimen rather than another aligned-staffing case?

Can the lead specimen and the protection cases both be correctly classified under the same test?

What fact puts forecasting in the protection bucket and development RCTs in the substrate bucket?

What observable, other than the analyst's sense of learning, puts forecasting in protection and RCTs in substrate?

Does the protection class survive a hiring-tell, or does it shrink to institutions that stop paying the frame?

On a blown call that does not dissolve the shop, does the test return substrate or protection?